5 ms·

A timely book. The article is a review of The Philosopher: A History in Six Types By Justin E.H. Smith[1] Philosophical practice has certainly become bound up

A timely book. The article is a review of The Philosopher: A History in Six Types By Justin E.H. Smith[1] Philosophical practice has certainly become bound up with academic philosophy. To such an extent that to be a "philosopher" one must become a lecturer in philosophy, preferably tenured because of the added cred. that brings. This is damaging to the grand project of philosophy because it creates an artificial division between those who supposedly "do" philosophy and those who follow. If the review of this book is accurate then Smith reckons that there are in fact six types of philosopher: the Natural Philosopher, the Sage, the Gadfly, the Ascetic, the Mandarin, and the Courtier. The Mandarin corresponds to our academic philosopher system. One detects a slight pejorative note in the label perhaps? FTA: “The Mandarin shares the pages of Smith’s book with five other types. There is the Curiosa [Natural Philosopher], who blurs the boundaries between natural science and philosophy. There is the Sage, who engages critically with a culture that he or she has thoroughly internalized. There is the Gadfly, whose critical engagement with the culture deploys such modes as parody or invective. There is the Ascetic, who disclaims such ersatz values as wealth or honor or pleasure for the real values: goodness, reflection, simplicity. Finally, there is the Courtier, speaking convenient untruths to power.” I think there is a very real sense in which philosophy has taken its eye off the ball in the last 150 years. However, I believe that philosophy is going to come into its own again because of the questions that machine intelligence, genetic engineering, and computing in the humanities pose. Why so? Because philosophy thrives at the blurred boundaries of disciplines. Every ages challenge is to reinvent philosophy in its own image. [1] http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10698.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10698.html

M_Grey 10y ago
The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable. Worse, the space their ideas can occupy shrinks as its claimed by fields with more rigor and more of a basis in scientific endeavor.
- Erik816 10y ago
  Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."
  - goatlover 10y ago
    The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influence on politics. Another example from the 18th or 19th century was when doctors thought dogs were just automatons, lacking any consciousness. Which allowed them to perform cruel medical experiments on the dogs, and ignore their howlings. But if we become convinced that animals are conscious and can experience pain and misery, do we change how we treat them?
    - Erik816 10y ago
      Certainly. I think science, and more objective areas of philosophy, are great at providing information about the world. And that should certainly factor into the discussions of how we should live in that world. They just can't determine it.
    - ryuker16 10y ago
      Depends on how tasty the animal is. The more self-aware an animal is, the less tasty it becomes. Cows, seafood, and pigs simply lack the divine park. Source: my stomach
  - igravious 10y ago
    No, this isn't true. Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on. The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately. In general it is best not to throw around terms like subjective and objective because they are fraught with historical baggage and misconception.
adrianratnapala 10y ago
> I think there is a very real sense in which philosophy has taken its eye off the ball in the last 150 years. Actually I think philosophy is a victim of its own success at keeping its eye on the ball over that period. That is: analytic philosophy has eliminated a lot of bullshit and posturing at the cost of raising up a new scholasticism. Analytic philosophy is nice and rigorous, and any argument must be defended against opponents within a well developed analytical tool-kit. In maths or science, that would be just dandy. But if any field really was amenable to such rigour it would no longer be called "philosophy". So we get a conversation between academics where everything seemingly is there for solid analytical reasons, but is really just what evolved particular cultural ecosystem of analytical standards. Outsiders have to learn and adapt all that culture to be heard: and they are thus absorbed into it.

M_Grey 10y ago

The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable. Worse, the space their ideas can occupy shrinks as its claimed by fields with more rigor and more of a basis in scientific endeavor.

Erik816 10y ago
Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."
- goatlover 10y ago
  The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influence on politics. Another example from the 18th or 19th century was when doctors thought dogs were just automatons, lacking any consciousness. Which allowed them to perform cruel medical experiments on the dogs, and ignore their howlings. But if we become convinced that animals are conscious and can experience pain and misery, do we change how we treat them?
  - Erik816 10y ago
    Certainly. I think science, and more objective areas of philosophy, are great at providing information about the world. And that should certainly factor into the discussions of how we should live in that world. They just can't determine it.
  - ryuker16 10y ago
    Depends on how tasty the animal is. The more self-aware an animal is, the less tasty it becomes. Cows, seafood, and pigs simply lack the divine park. Source: my stomach
- igravious 10y ago
  No, this isn't true. Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on. The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately. In general it is best not to throw around terms like subjective and objective because they are fraught with historical baggage and misconception.

adrianratnapala 10y ago

> I think there is a very real sense in which philosophy has taken its eye off the ball in the last 150 years. Actually I think philosophy is a victim of its own success at keeping its eye on the ball over that period. That is: analytic philosophy has eliminated a lot of bullshit and posturing at the cost of raising up a new scholasticism. Analytic philosophy is nice and rigorous, and any argument must be defended against opponents within a well developed analytical tool-kit. In maths or science, that would be just dandy. But if any field really was amenable to such rigour it would no longer be called "philosophy". So we get a conversation between academics where everything seemingly is there for solid analytical reasons, but is really just what evolved particular cultural ecosystem of analytical standards. Outsiders have to learn and adapt all that culture to be heard: and they are thus absorbed into it.